US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 21

iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Water levels will rise by thousands of metres due to climate change.

KwarK wrote:Do you ever get tired of being wrong Nettles?

iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Did you know that in 1912 the Titanic was around the same level as the water but now it's thousands of metres below? If you were on the Titanic are you really going to say you wouldn't have been troubled by rising water levels?

KwarK wrote:Why don't we compare the Titanic to a third benchmark, like the top of the Empire State Building, and see if it's the water levels that went up or the Titanic that went down?

On October 30 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:

Any concrete examples? I can see what you might be trying to say but I would like to see a more specific example of what you're referring to.

On October 30 2016 03:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:


Na you didn't debunk anything only inside your little mind, if i was lying the mods would have banned long time ago i provided sources and laid down my opinion. Nonsensical ? When 80% of the rebels in Aleppo are islamic extremists, she says she wants to arm the rebels in Aleppo, whats the logical conclusion? Alqaeda dominates the rebels in that region and without them the rebels are not capable of fending of the regime, you are the liar here or just badly informed.




the thing is i could easily overlook some weapons going to the wrong hands, with so many factions engaging in this civil war that is bound to happen eventually. The thing is that the core of rebels in Aleppo are extremists, i listed all the involved rebel factions on the latest attacks to break the siege. 80% of them are extremists and want to impose sharia law and an islamic caliphate you can check their websites where they state that much. By helping the rebels in Aleppo you will be helping those extremist factions, thus helping Alqaeda that is the strongest military and ideologically among the rebel factions.

It's not hyperbole to say that she will be arming islamic extremists including Alqaeda. Any weapon you give to the rebels will be used in coordination with them because they are spearheading the major operations there. Funny enough the rebels have shown much more unity after the Al-Nusra re-branding and their ascension in Syria.

On November 01 2016 10:08 LegalLord wrote:
I was going to dedicate more of this post specifically to the kwizach issue, but after some thought I decided that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Anyone who is late to the kwizach chronicles who wants to read up can read these three posts, these three replies by kwizach, and the feedback thread series starting here if they want to understand where any of this comes from. The tl;dr version is that some posters, most vocally myself and xDaunt, believe that kwizach isn't worth debating with because he does a hell of a lot of grudge-collecting and his long posts are essentially hollow Gish gallops, which really aren't worth responding to because the general tendency of his participation is very often to lead into some really awful discussions in the thread. But other than the fact that he still feels it necessary to come by and offer his commentary to posters who really don't want to talk to him, that's mostly a settled issue.

The issue I really want to focus on is the shitty low-content sideliners, and in this case I'm going to single out farvacola (the most egregious in this case) as someone who adds literally nothing to the discussion but just sits by the sidelines and heckles the opinion he is disinclined to support.

Exhibit A:


Reply posted exactly 9 minutes later.

Exhibit B:

So this guy literally adds nothing to the discussion (having had a month to actually give an opinion on the matter in response to the original post if he had one) and yet feels himself qualified to play this kind of game. This isn't the first or the only case of this - he literally gives a low-content response to every long post. To ones he agrees with, he gives a "yay, u go gurrrl" encouragement post, to ones he disagrees with it's a "ur just stoopid and ur post is wrong." Yet it's clear that, even with some impressive skills in speed-reading that would allow someone to read it in 9 minutes at most (assuming he started viewing it literally as it was posted), there is no way anyone could read such a post critically enough to question whether or not it really is valid. That these two posts were made without even a surface-level consideration of the issues at hand is just so obvious that there's not much to say. Farvacola is far from the only offender, but he singled himself out here by being blatantly and stupidly hostile while adding fuck all to the conversation in terms of content.

This is one of the many reasons I don't like dealing in long dissertation-length posts. People mistake length for quality when the main point agrees with the point that they are previously inclined to support, and they take a "I KNOW this point is BS, it MUST be BS, but I just can't make the argument myself, so somebody PLEASE make the argument for me" stance whenever they are not so inclined to support that position. That is literally the exact same kind of garbage that conspiracy theorist Gish gallops are made of - giant wall-of-text preachings that are uncritically taken as fact by the converted - and I'm just not too into that game. It's too easy to think that just because something sounds good and it looks like too much work to analyze, that it must be right and you can just trust it to be right.

And I also did play that game once - with my response to Lord Tolkien on his repeated point on demographics - and it just isn't something I have interest in or time for. I had to read(/skim) maybe three books, dozens of articles and research papers, and it still ended up being mostly focused on how he randomly ascribed various positions to me based on pretty much nothing, and was a total dick about it. I am more interested in making posts like these where there is more talk about the issues and less focus on responding to people who think it's somehow justified to collect grudges and turn the discussion into a shitty attempt at something resembling those "pwnage videos" that people sometimes like to watch. Because with the crowd these long posts by shitty poor-mannered asshats tend to attract, that's exactly the kind of environment we're getting.

As has been said before, you get out of people what you put in. And for me personally, if what I get out of someone is just pure trash, I will either briefly call them a moron, ignore them entirely, or both. But if this kind of sideline asshattery continues to be the norm, then we're all worse off for it.

On November 01 2016 13:01 IgnE wrote:
it honestly seems pretty easy to post a response to kwizach if you wanted to. it wouldn't even take that long compared to how long he spent writing that monster. i could probably do it myself with some legalord flair and pretend i was you. it's just an imposition. now you have to spend time defending yourself. but hey that's what the forum is for. i'd much rather read the two of you going at it, "poison" and all, than read 10 more pages about whether trump has a chance or what the state of the polls are.